Review of the Texas Turbo AFO design from Kevin Matthews, CO

Kevin Matthews, CO of Advanced Orthopedic Designs, posted a “how-to” video a while back on YouTube.  After seeing the video, I wanted to try it but never did until now.  The Texas Turbo AFO is a posterior entry AFO that is easy to put on and low profile  due to Kevin’s fabrication ingenuity.  I must admit that the fabrication was not easy, but we did get a perfect pull on the second try.

For my patient, the brace was perfect; he had drop foot and no plantarflexors.  The brace lifted his toes and the anterior aspect of the brace allowed him to push over the toes, essentially getting “fake” plantarflexion.  After seeing the results of this AFO, I believe the design is underutilized in the field of orthotics.  When you are thinking about using a solid ankle AFO to give ankle stability as well as dynamic plantarflexion, you may want to consider this brace.  With the advent of some newer materials, I believe that creating a dynamic AFO with energy return will really take our field to the next level.

Fabrication video from Advanced Orthopedic Designs



Filed under Orthotic Technical Tips, Reviews of Designs for AFO's, SMO's and other orthoses

10 responses to “Review of the Texas Turbo AFO design from Kevin Matthews, CO

  1. We have been using Kevin’s design for about 5 years now, and more recently are combining his technique with Elaine Owen’s philosophy of using afo and shoe combinations and tuning them to get the best shank angle at midstance. The results, for the most part, far exceed any posterior shell afo that we have ever done, or any standard Ground reaction design. We are just now starting to use the ProComp material designed by Becker Orthopedics, and we are finding that this seems to be bridging the gap where the polypro afo was not quite enough and the laminated afo was too much.
    The Texas Turbo design is a spin off of the “Stabilizer” afo by Marmaduke Loke and Dynamic Bracing Solutions, as are the Helios system offered by Ortho Rehab Designs in Las Vegas and the IDEO system now offered by Hanger.

    • Thank you Al for stopping by. One thing (among many) I appreciate about Kevin is that he gives credit to Marmoduke for the design whereas the others do not. The IDEO may work well but Ryan pretty much stole the idea and did a good job marketing it.

      • Al Jorgensen

        AMEN! Finally someone else knows and is aware. I contacted the lady that wrote the article about Ryan’s presentation at the Hanger National Convention, but no response yet. Kevin has been great to work with. We took Marmaduke’s course in October, and that for me was a big piece of the puzzle that I needed to fill.
        Glad I found your site.

      • My question is, did Hanger buy the patent from the Department of Defense?

      • Al Jorgensen

        IDK. I know about a year ago there was a firm looking for a facility to C-fab it. Could Hanger advertise the whole IDEO program if they didn’t?

  2. dick brumme

    which of the three is best for CMT patients?

    • Jeanne

      good question – I’m researching the Dynamic Bracing Solutions and outside of their own website, can’t find anything. Also am told they are made for CMT patients but unable to find a CMTer who is actually using them who is willing to talk to me about them. Wonder why such an issue to get more info from the end user.

    • Mr. Brumme: There are a couple of variables to be considered in the answer. If you are considering the Texas Turbo design, be sure you get is from some one who is very familiar with it and it’s fabrication and design. When it is fabricated correctly (proper shank angle, foot position, proper reinforcement, height, etc) it can be a very effective treatment for CMT. Most of my CMT patients are in this design. Typically this design is covered by most insurances. If you are looking at the Dynamic Bracing solution by Marmaduke, the Helios System in Las Vegas, or the IDEO system now offered by Hanger, I would go with Marmaduke and Dynamic Bracing Solutions, or one of the facilities that uses his concept. The other two designs are spin offs. Mitch Werner with the Helios System and Ryan Blanck with the IDEO system each trained under Marmaduke, then started their own systems. Each has their own followers, but I like the original design that Marmaduke offers. The downside of any of those devices is that typically insurance will not cover them, and they range anywhere from $3500 to $20 000, depending on the complexity of the limb they are being used on.
      There are other “dynamic” orthoses that claim tri planar control. The PHAT brace out of Des Moines (BIomechanical Composites) has a good idea but the design leaves a lot to be desired. I used them on several patients for about a year. They wore out too quickly and did not perform as I had hoped. A couple other companies have duplicate designs that I have not tried. Hope this helps.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s